From our very own "Hot Topics" page...

[rbrucecarter5]

Hell, if the terrain is flat, HD can go more than 100 miles EASILY...reaching out with noise-free variety to REAL rural areas.

You mean, somebody is actually acknowledging that there are radio listeners that live more than 100 miles from New York City? What a shock!

All I can tell you is that if you don't get the analog portion of the signal, you sure aren't going to get the digital. And I would be very interested to know what is going to happen to the station 100 miles away, over the event horizon, when an airplane flies over and you get dropouts. From what I hear about HD receivers, it takes about ten seconds for the signal to lock in. So if you have airplane flutter - or for that matter just atmospheric fading - causing phase shifts and wildly fluctuating signal levels in about 1/2 second timeframes - I seriously doubt if an HD receiver could maintain lock for any substantial period of time. Especially mid-afternoon, when there is very little skip operating.

I once lived about 85 miles from Jacksonville, FL. With a Radio Shack Yagi - daytime reception was phenomenal. But - it was subject to the effects above. So HD, especially HD-2 and 3 would be virtually useless. The receiver would be capable of very good analog reception, and probably HD only during periods of tropo skip - not at all during sporadic E skip.

The HD folks had better start talking to the very people they disrespect - the DX'ers - about how to get acceptable signals to receivers in their primary coverage areas. From what it sounds like to me, the 30 to 60 mile range is where they are in trouble. And that is where there would be a potential for reliable HD with a large external antenna pointed at the station.

I am afraid, too, that the "100 mile from a city" estimate is very otpimistic for most Western states. Substantial numbers of listeners are 200, 300 and more miles from major cities. HD is irrelevent to them, it will never work at that range. Although I reliably received FM from 330 miles - anything is possible with enough gain in the antenna and sensitivity in the front end of the receiver. So true HD DX is a remote possibility, but outside the capabilities and budget of most casual listeners. I'd have to say to them - get satellite. Although the population density per square mile is low in the west, there are an awful lot of those square miles, and it adds up to 10's of millions of listeners who will never be served by HD.

 

[Mike Walker]

With a good antenna on a mast with a rotor, FM station can go quite astounding distances. Planes flying over MAY cause interference. It sure as hell isn't automatic. If that were the case, people near airports and in major flight-paths would have never gotten tv or radio.

God love 'em...and I LOVE 'EM because I AM ONE, rural people are a real minority. One need look only at the (old...the new one changed last year!) map of "red vs. blue" states to see that while there are far more red ones than blue, in terms of population, they're about evenly distributed. It takes a bunch 'o red (mostly rural) states to equal the population of a blue one. I live 80 miles from Charlotte, and 60 miles from Winston Salem (about 100 miles from Asheville). I KNOW I'm in the sticks. The FM station I work for, however, has a "city grade signal" in all of those locations. With it's "stick" on a mountaintop, it EASILY covers 80-100 miles as if it were a stone's throw. Anyone in North Carolina, upstate South Carolina, Eastern Tennessee, the southern half of Virginia, or Northern Georgia can vouch for the signal penetration of WKBC-FM (97.3)...once fully equalled by WFMX Statesville (where I did mornings once upon a time!) at 105.7. GIANT FM signals like these go a long, long way!

 

[700WLW]

Interest in HD Radio is down among programmers:

http://www.radio-info.com/content/column.php?rcID=34

"HD Confidence Falls; iPhone A Threat?"

http://www.infinitedial.com/2007/02/hd_confidence_falls_iphone_a_t.php

 

[rbrucecarter5]

I can tell you right now - if I had a broadband iPhone - I would pay $100 a month for unrestricted access to broadband streaming. Thousands of stations - anything I want. Depending on my mood. Thousands instead of a hundred or so with satellite or a couple of dozen with HD. I think most people feel the same. Even if they just want to park on a single station across the country for its niche format, they are no longer kept from listening by distance.

Wireless internet probably won't do it - too many gaps in coverage especially on rural roads. Cellular is the only potential infrastructure that might do it.

 

[EasyPeazy]

And you would get dropped streams... just like you get dropped calls (execpt worse because the stream uses more bandwidth). So no, cellular aint a gonna cut it.

Yeah, the whole mobile streaming thing is a favorite of the anti-IBOC crowd.

The way I look at it is this - my cell phone drops calls all the time - either on my end or whoever I'm talking to gets dropped.

The cellular industry has had a really, really long time to get their voice service right - but they haven't.

Aside from that, coverage from my carrier is like Swiss cheese. The phone works in this spot, but it doesn't work 20' from here. Again, if they couldn't fix that with voice, why would they be able to with high speed data?

 

[dbdigital]

And you would get dropped streams... just like you get dropped calls (execpt worse because the stream uses more bandwidth). So no, cellular aint a gonna cut it.

Yeah, the whole mobile streaming thing is a favorite of the anti-IBOC crowd.

The way I look at it is this - my cell phone drops calls all the time - either on my end or whoever I'm talking to gets dropped.

The cellular industry has had a really, really long time to get their voice service right - but they haven't.

Aside from that, coverage from my carrier is like Swiss cheese. The phone works in this spot, but it doesn't work 20' from here. Again, if they couldn't fix that with voice, why would they be able to with high speed data?

That's like saying it's foolish to put stock in radio's future because the signal fades as one moves away from a station's contour. Mobile streaming technology is a moving target. What's hot now (or what is a problem now, like spotty cellphone reception), probably won't be a year from now.

Besides it isn't the current cellular infrastructure that has most of us here excited but WiMAX, a technology that has several heavy hitters behind it including Sprint, Intel and Microsoft.

WiMAX is a technology that has "legs", in a way that HD-Radio doesn't.

db

 

[vsa]

EasyPeazy wrote: "The cellular industry has had a really, really long time to get their voice service right - but they haven't."

You're mixing apples with oranges in terms of technologies. Even the cell phone companies have plans to eventually switch their voice services to VOIP over data networks running advanced forms of EVDO, WiMax and whatever follows.

HD radio is like putting wings on a train. You can say that the train has thus become modernized, but nobody sees any benefits to it and nobody is foolish enough to pay the expensive fare to "fly" one. And those train wings create plenty of damage during the trip, particularly along those HD-R AM tracks.

While some people here sit tight, hoping their world won't change too much, there are lots of people who see opportunity and are working to seize it. One almost off-the-wall example is:

"Gas pipe broadband? Imagine accessing the Internet over the same pipe that provides you with natural gas for cooking. It may sound nuts today, but a San Diego company called Nethercomm is developing a way to use ultra wideband wireless signals to transmit data at broadband speeds through natural-gas pipes."

http://news.com.com/Gas+pipe+broadband/2100-1034_3-5945204.html

Blazingly fast Internet access, wired, wireless, gas-piped or otherwise, will be a common utility that will be the means to deliver most forms of entertainment and information. Plan for this historic change or be left in the dust.

 

[EasyPeazy]

And you would get dropped streams... just like you get dropped calls (execpt worse because the stream uses more bandwidth). So no, cellular aint a gonna cut it.

Yeah, the whole mobile streaming thing is a favorite of the anti-IBOC crowd.

The way I look at it is this - my cell phone drops calls all the time - either on my end or whoever I'm talking to gets dropped.

The cellular industry has had a really, really long time to get their voice service right - but they haven't.

Aside from that, coverage from my carrier is like Swiss cheese. The phone works in this spot, but it doesn't work 20' from here. Again, if they couldn't fix that with voice, why would they be able to with high speed data?

That's like saying it's foolish to put stock in radio's future because the signal fades as one moves away from a station's contour. Mobile streaming technology is a moving target. What's hot now (or what is a problem now, like spotty cellphone reception), probably won't be a year from now.

Besides it isn't the current cellular infrastructure that has most of us here excited but WiMAX, a technology that has several heavy hitters behind it including Sprint, Intel and Microsoft.

WiMAX is a technology that has "legs", in a way that HD-Radio doesn't.

db

Cellular coverage was spotty 10 years ago. It was spotty last year. It's spotty now and it will be spotty a year from now.

The biggest WiMAX provider is ClearWire and everything I've seen and heard about them is NOT encouraging. A coworker of mine has them and says they are less reliable than dial up and often have comparable speed.

 

[700WLW]

And you would get dropped streams... just like you get dropped calls (execpt worse because the stream uses more bandwidth). So no, cellular aint a gonna cut it.

Yeah, the whole mobile streaming thing is a favorite of the anti-IBOC crowd.

The way I look at it is this - my cell phone drops calls all the time - either on my end or whoever I'm talking to gets dropped.

The cellular industry has had a really, really long time to get their voice service right - but they haven't.

Aside from that, coverage from my carrier is like Swiss cheese. The phone works in this spot, but it doesn't work 20' from here. Again, if they couldn't fix that with voice, why would they be able to with high speed data?

That's like saying it's foolish to put stock in radio's future because the signal fades as one moves away from a station's contour. Mobile streaming technology is a moving target. What's hot now (or what is a problem now, like spotty cellphone reception), probably won't be a year from now.

Besides it isn't the current cellular infrastructure that has most of us here excited but WiMAX, a technology that has several heavy hitters behind it including Sprint, Intel and Microsoft.

WiMAX is a technology that has "legs", in a way that HD-Radio doesn't.

db

Cellular coverage was spotty 10 years ago. It was spotty last year. It's spotty now and it will be spotty a year from now.

The biggest WiMAX provider is ClearWire and everything I've seen and heard about them is NOT encouraging. A coworker of mine has them and says they are less reliable than dial up and often have comparable speed.

"WiFi is coming to an entire city near you..."

"And radio's competition explodes. Are you set to compete in that world? Do you have the plan? The tools? Are you investing your precious resources in the right things?"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/02/wifi_is_coming_.html#comments

Off Ramsey's web site, today !

 

[EasyPeazy]

"WiFi is coming to an entire city near you..."

"And radio's competition explodes. Are you set to compete in that world? Do you have the plan? The tools? Are you investing your precious resources in the right things?"

http://www.hear2.com/2007/02/wifi_is_coming_.html#comments

Off Ramsey's web site, today !

Yeah, I'm inclined to believe this - given how dead-on accurate he has been about the whole Google Trends thing. NOT!

 

[vsa]

EasyPeazy wrote: "Yeah, I'm inclined to believe this - given how dead-on accurate he has been about the whole Google Trends thing.  NOT!"

Ramsey cites two newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Houston Chronicle. They report that each of their respective cities will likely have cheap, probably even some free, wireless broadband citywide by 2009. What's NOT to believe here?

I get it. If it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, the facts must be ignored or discarded.

HD radio's brief window of opportunity, if any, is slamming shut.

 

[EasyPeazy]

EasyPeazy wrote: "Yeah, I'm inclined to believe this - given how dead-on accurate he has been about the whole Google Trends thing. NOT!"

Ramsey cites two newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Houston Chronicle. They report that each of their respective cities will likely have cheap, probably even some free, wireless broadband citywide by 2009. What's NOT to believe here?

I get it. If it doesn't fit your preconceived notions, the facts must be ignored or discarded.

HD radio's brief window of opportunity, if any, is slamming shut.

So what if they do have it? Big deal. What I question is reliability. Will it be reliable enough to support mobile listening of streaming audio? Probably not. Just because it's "citywide" doesn't mean it won't be rife with holes in coverage and other problems - just like cellular and WiMAX services like ClearWire.

Besides - the last prediction of free city-wide internet I heard was in San Francisco and that was several years ago. Where is it?

Nothing is "slamming shut" for HD Radio. It will continue to grow and prosper. Fast enough to shut up the clueless pundits on this board? Probably not - but it will happen.

 

[EasyPeazy]

the clueless pundits on this board? Probably not - but it will happen.

Are you finished insulting me yet? Good. It really doesn't surprise me one bit that somebody who advocates slopping interference on neighboring frequencies would also stoop so low as to insult people, trouble is personal insults always are grounds for losing debates. You lose!

I didn't call you anything. If you wish to lump yourself in and apply the label to yourself, there's not much I can do to stop you.

I was actually referring to the people who keep posting the same useless drivel over and over and over and over and over again. Most of them are not only wrong, they endlessly offer opinions on something they personally don't have any experience with - HD Radio.

pundit - a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.

clueless - totally uninformed about what is going on; not having even a clue from which to infer what is occurring

Those are the definitions of the words from dictionary.com. Can you think of a better, more descriptive term for the people who continually post here and whose experience is limited to briefly playing with HD in a big box store - or better yet, have never even touched or heard an HD Radio?

 

[vsa]

EasyPeazy wrote: "...What I question is reliability.  Will it be reliable enough to support mobile listening of streaming audio?  Probably not.  Just because it's "citywide" doesn't mean it won't be rife with holes in coverage and other problems - just like cellular and WiMAX services like ClearWire..."

The same things were once said about the reliability of computer automation systems for broadcast use. You are making a fatal mistake in underestimating the threat to radio from wireless Internet technologies. They will steadily improve and they will flourish - because consumers want it. HD radio fills the needs of broadcasters only. It is DEAD.

Here in Los Angeles, the nation's top billing radio market, being an active radio broadcaster for almost 40 years now, I already own a standalone Wi-Fi radio and a smartphone/pda with EVDO and Wi-Fi capability for my car and on-the-go. I have had absolutely no desire to spend my own personal money on an HD radio. I can see the handwriting on the wall as plain as day. If you thought Docket 80-90 was tough with the added competition, you ain't seen nothin' yet. HD radio is a time and money-wasting diversion from the real work that must be done by broadcasters who want to survive.

 

[SUPERCASTER]

EasyPeazy wrote: "...What I question is reliability. Will it be reliable enough to support mobile listening of streaming audio? Probably not. Just because it's "citywide" doesn't mean it won't be rife with holes in coverage and other problems - just like cellular and WiMAX services like ClearWire..."

The same things were once said about the reliability of computer automation systems for broadcast use. You are making a fatal mistake in underestimating the threat to radio from wireless Internet technologies. They will steadily improve and they will flourish - because consumers want it. HD radio fills the needs of broadcasters only. It is DEAD.

Here in Los Angeles, the nation's top billing radio market, being an active radio broadcaster for almost 40 years now, I already own a standalone Wi-Fi radio and a smartphone/pda with EVDO and Wi-Fi capability for my car and on-the-go. I have had absolutely no desire to spend my own personal money on an HD radio. I can see the handwriting on the wall as plain as day. If you thought Docket 80-90 was tough with the added competition, you ain't seen nothin' yet. HD radio is a time and money-wasting diversion from the real work that must be done by broadcasters who want to survive.

Well said.